“Socialist” . . .is a term that gets thrown around a lot in politics

No it isn’t. Or, it wasn’t until the last few weeks. And the 1950s. And the reason that it doesn’t get thrown around a lot is that it is an obviously desperate attempt to demonize one’s opponent. That’s why I just call you a dumb motherfucker; I don’t need to make that up.

You really shouldn’t try to project your right wing religion, logic will defeat it every time.

Speaking of logic:

How much tax revenue would the govt. get when the tax rates are zero then genius?

is typically known as “reductio ad absurdum“: reduction to the absurd. Now I will grant that leftists like Angry Vertebrate, a.k.a. Anarchist Vegetarian, a.k.a. Incoherent Invertebrate generally have a corner on absurd arguments, they are generally appealing only to fellow travelers and unschooled youths, hence the efforts of the education establishment to “get them while they’re young”.

IF Obama wins by a landslide or any other way? He will still be required to produce a Birth Certificate in order to fulfill Constitutional requirements. The last I heard most of the USA still respect the Constitution? What would be awful is IF Obama is a Fraud and has fooled a large majority of US citizens. Why has he NOT been able to produce that Birth Certificate? I would think even the most liberal Americans would want to be sure he meets Constitutional Standards?

I think NOBAMA will just poo poo it and say its racist that he has to produce a birth certificate. Of course the MSM will cover for him.

There is a very real possibility that McCain might lose. Massive voter fraud would be only one of the reasons, young troll.

What is massive voter fraud in your pea-brained mind?

Obama is no socialist? Oh really?

Yeah right and Obama doesn’t want to redistribute the wealth either, just ask Biden or the Obama campaign.

What “a willing suspension of disbelief”.

Zsa Zsa, please ask Rodney G. Graves about Obama’s birth certificate.

What is massive voter fraud in your pea-brained mind?

I’d describe it to you, Haphazardlies, but I’d have to use more than monosyllabic* words, and you have trouble even with those!

*Ask your mother.

Here

“Hear” your dumb ass use the wrong word 4 times in the same paragraph.

In Boy Scouts Of America v. Dale, Obama’s favorite justices rejected the argument that a private organization [like BSOA] should be allowed to set it’s own standards of conduct for the leaders who influence their Scouts by barring openly gay scotmasters.

In this case, it was not gay rights but the First Amendment freedom of association that was hanging in the balance. It had to hang on a 5-4 majority because of Obama’s favorite justices.

Well, that is certainly not changing the subject and thread jacking.

Joel, you certainly don’t have to hang around the gays if it makes you feel more manly. Nobody is telling you that you need to respect people who might be different from you. This is America and you are free to be an A-hole if you wish.

I personally don’t like the idea of gays leading boy-scouts but at the same time I understand that if you allow this, then you have to freedom of association for organizations not to accept blacks and minorities. Do you want that?

What am I talking about, of course you do. You single handedly make it easy for me to understand why Obama is right and you need to think about things a bit more.

You hate a majority of blacks simply because they differ from you. Why should I trust that you are intelligent enough to deal with this complicated issue.

We cant’, you have demonstrated your lack of judgement and character.

Obama is NOT just talking about taxes…

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society…

What would the Supreme Court have to do with taxes?

What kind of Court does Obama envision that would focus on “political and economic justice”, and who would he put on the Court in pursuit of those ends?

Wake up, America!!

Poofy is already trying to make up excuses why his candidate might loose. (sic)

Yeah. Right! And all the folks talking about racism on the other side aren’t! Heh.

There is a very real possibility that McCain might lose. Massive voter fraud would be only one of the reasons, young troll.

The Boy Scouts rejected gay guys as scoutmasters; the Catholic Church failed to reject gay guys as priests. You know how that worked out.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with race. By conflating the 2 leftards have successfully brought their agenda of child molestation into mainstream society.

AV,

I was expressing my feelings. I don’t believe it is a living document. I don’t believe it’s “fatally flawed.” If you have a different view, fine. We are still free to disagree as of this moment.

Historically, the government takes in more revenue when the tax rates are lower… — Proof

How much tax revenue would the govt. get when the tax rates are zero then genius? Obviously there is a point where reducing taxes further reduces tax revenue.

A couple of papers published showed that this magic number for taxation is between 50% and 90%.

Proof, stick to writing terrible puns, you suck at economics.

Hanny,

I will be the first to say I am not an economic scholar, I don’t know this law or that ruling w/o looking it up, like most Americans. However, all I really need to know is one thing. Obama’s values and ideals regarding the Constitution go directly against my values. I do not believe the Constitution is a living document. I do not believe in people milking off the teat of the government. I am avidly opposed to a “nanny state.” I am livid at the thought of infanticide. So, no, there’s no way I will change my ideals or morals. Like the rest of the country, if Obama becomes our president I will continue to pay my taxes and follow the laws of the land as an honest citizen. But there’s no way, no way in hell, that I will “change.”

The Incoherent Invertebrate seems to be highly selective in the points it will defend, which for some reason, seldom coincide with the points being discussed.

Pernicious and insidious:

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer about SCOTUS, Obama named his three favorite Justices.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer.

Justices Ginsburg and Souter were recently on the short end of a 7-2 ruling on criminal penalties for the promotion of child pornography.

They opposed the penalties.

In Kelo v. New London, Breyer joined Souter and Ginsburg to rule that local governments can take away people’s homes in order to give them to private developers under the principle of eminent domain.

In Boy Scouts Of America v. Dale, Obama’s favorite justices rejected the argument that a private organization [like BSOA] should be allowed to set it’s own standards of conduct for the leaders who influence their Scouts by barring openly gay scotmasters.

In this case, it was not gay rights but the First Amendment freedom of association that was hanging in the balance. It had to hang on a 5-4 majority because of Obama’s favorite justices.

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (U.S. 2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey anti-discrimination law that required the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to admit an openly gay man as a scoutmaster violated the Boy Scouts’ FIRST AMENDMENT right of expressive association.

As a Harvard-educated lawyer who once served as a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school, Obama knows a lot about law.

He has quite a bit to say on the topic of the Constitution and its interpretation in his book, The Audacity Of Hope.

Justice Antonin Scalia, Obama writes , believes ” that the original understanding of the Constitution must be followed, and that if we strictly obey this rule, then democracy is respected.”

Obama considers that notion absurd:

“It is unrealistic to believe that a judge, two hundred years later, can somehow discern the original intent of the founders or ratifiers.”

On the other hand, he likes the way liberal judges approach the Constitution. He holds up Justice Stephen Breyer as an example.

“Ultimately,” he writes, “I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constituion-that it is not static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever changing world.”

That’s it folks. No more standards, no more historical core values, no more tried and true benchmarks, no more Contitutional rock solid foundation………

Pernicious and insidious indeed !

By the way, Obama sounds brilliant, I wonder if he had a TelePrompTer? I think we know the answer is, NO!

So while Obama talks about re-distributive change, not wealth…..you are just trying to spin this to make him look like the person it is that you have made up in your head.

You are simply playing games with words, it is pretty dishonest and pathetic.

Researching it one day is what lead me to the two papers.

That still have no links. A good cheeseburger about now might help you clarify your thoughts long enough to find them!

You really shouldn’t try to project your right wing religion, logic will defeat it every time.

Religion? You really have slipped your trolley, haven’t you?
I know it’s early, but maybe it’s time for your nap?

that in classically structured Communist societies there was an effective 100% tax rate and yet, while these societies may have been highly inefficient, people did continue to work to some extent

At the point of a gun, you moron! You really shouldn’t try to pass off your babblings as “logic”. Real logic and truth will defeat you every time!

Freedom trumps communism. Deal with it.

AV, the Obama version dictionary will steer you up the creek.

Socialism – 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished between unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Any leader who advocates socialism such as Obama is arrogant, power hungry and condescending to his would be subjects. The people aren’t even in view in Obama’s plan as he misstates. The one directive is to cut the US economy down to manageable size in accordance with the global agenda and then try and somehow fit people into the aftermath.

If Obama were ever elected president, then all of us rich, poor, or somewhere in between, would be viewing the struggling financial markets of today as the good old days.

Some who are in their 20′s like me may like the idea of Obama redistributing other people’s money to them now, but if they hope to get ahead in life and become successful they can count on Obama coming for their wealth. Because that’s what socialist policies do.

It is also what taxes do. You know, those things we have been paying all of our lives?

The fact of the matter is, not matter how dishonestly you mischaracterize taxing the rich, it still goes to the government who uses it as we desire. If not, then we vote the bastards out.

Rich people pay taxes now and their wealth is being re-distributed, Obama just wants to stop the TAX CUT, given by Bush.

You are a dishonest hack Rob.

Yeah, that was the most articulate i have ever heard him speak off prompter. I guess since it was a subject he was so familiar with and comfortable with he could speak in such a fluid manner.

Hannitized… since when has personal choice of sexual behavior equated with race?

I personally don’t like the idea of gays leading boy-scouts but at the same time I understand that if you allow this, then you have to freedom of association for organizations not to accept blacks and minorities.

You are suggesting that adult males who are attracted to men – often young boys – must be tolerated by the BSA at meetings and while hiking and camping for the sake of race!

What does that have to do with white, brown, black and yellow boys sleeping in the same tents?

You are dead wrong on this one!

This speech by Obama reveals that Michelle Bachmann was right; Obama’s values are fundamentally unAmerican.

Proof: Of course I have heard of the Laffer Curve. Researching it one day is what lead me to the two papers. Also, you should read the entire article that you linked to.

Govt. tax revenue increasing even when taxes are reduced is only correlation, not causation. I’d bet a fiver that tax revenues would have increased even if the tax rates hadn’t been reduced, and another fiver that they’d have increased even more without the tax-rate cuts.

When an economy grows, for a given level of taxation, so does tax revenue.

Landslide as in “more votes counted than registered voters”? Then credit ACORN and their fellow travelers.

Poofy is already trying to make up excuses why his candidate might loose.

I wouldn’t expect him to be honest enough, or intelligent enough to come to a valid conclusion. This is what he lives for, and people here at SAB are trying to create their own reality together.

This is more of a support group than an actual blog.

And 2hotel STILL has not proved Elinas said it.

RBB. IF Obama wins by a landslide or any other way? He will still be required to produce a Birth Certificate in order to fulfill Constitutional requirements. The last I heard most of the USA still respect the Constitution? What would be awful is IF Obama is a Fraud and has fooled a large majority of US citizens. Why has he NOT been able to produce that Birth Certificate? I would think even the most liberal Americans would want to be sure he meets Constitutional Standards?

I love how it changed its usename, trying to hide from something, most like in his head.

I do not believe the Constitution is a living document.–di butler

Tough. It is

Even tougher. It isn’t. The fact that the Constitution can be changed via amendment doesn’t make it a “living” document in the sense that the Left uses the word.

The Left historically has used the term “living document” to assert that because times have changed, we don’t have to understand the words in the same context as the Founders. That is to say, we can alter the meaning of the words to mean whatever we want them to mean. We call that: Rewriting the Constitution without amending it.

Nice try at obfuscation, though.

Sigh. Obama is referring to the redistribution of wealth that was necessary between the time slavery ended and the time the civil rights movement got into full swing. In other words, this is a theoretical discussion mostly centered around the policies enacted over 40 to 140 years ago. The running yellow commentary is completely misleading and outright wrong at times. It’s pretty hilarious that you are actually taking the yellow commentary as fact, when you can hear how off it is as you’re reading it. The best part of this Youtube clip is that the creator can’t even spell the words he or she is typing. (If your news source didn’t even take the time to use spell check on his Power Point production, he might be a little less than credible.)

What you McCain folks don’t realize is that the wealth has been “redistributed” for years. It’s being taken away from future generations in the form of loans in order to fund a war based on misinformation. The Bush economy has spent money at a prolific rate, almost unrivaled in the history of the modern world. The debt is now 10.5 trillion dollars, people. That’s $35,000 dollars per head. Instead of taxing you, GW has simply run your credit card up to 35k without telling you. And guess what? There’s interest! YOUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS!

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

You’re funding wars with your Social Security and your children’s tax money. Why are you so angry that a small percentage of very wealthy individuals might go back to paying the same tax rates that they were paying 8 years ago? Why are you so eager to fall on your swords so that Exxon Mobile can keep huge profits while you spend hundreds of dollars a month filling up your tank?

I’ve got to stop visiting these message boards. Please take the time to read facts instead of listening to lies and half truths spouted by people who can’t even spell at a 6th grade level.

About as much tax revenue as when the tax rates are 100% genius! — Proof

Wrong again buddy. You really shouldn’t try to project your right wing religion, logic will defeat it every time.

The Laffer Curve assumes that the Government will collect no tax at a 100% tax rate because, rationally, no person will choose to carry out work if they receive none of the economic return from that work. However some economists question whether this assumption is correct.[12] They argue, for example, that in classically structured Communist societies there was an effective 100% tax rate and yet, while these societies may have been highly inefficient, people did continue to work to some extent.[/i — Wikipedia

The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism, and as Barbara West of WFTV noted, it runs in Marx’s classic philosophy of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people.

-Ed Morrissey

It is your Constitution that you – not John McCain – must defend and protect. You cannot cede that responsibility to any politician. None. The Constitution protects you. It limits politicians. There is a potential conflict of interest at the outset. Barack Obama just explained that to you in no uncertain terms. Do you understand that?

So stop whining, stop complaining about the media being in the bag for Obama, stop fretting over polls reported – and often conducted – by the same. Just shut up already. Get to the business of defending and protecting your Constitution.

-Steve Schippert

Changing the definition you use does not change the actual meaning of words, keep trying though, mommy appreciates all the free time she gets when you are playing online.

Hannitized and dannyboy on overtime tonight, bad words and all mad eh? Good.

2Hotel9: I don’t need to change definitions because the dictionary agrees with me.

soâ‹…cialâ‹…ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. — dictionary.reference.com

I don’t think that quite definition quite fits with Obama’s objectives.